Comparison of success and cost after retrieval of two inferior vena cava filters.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to help guide inferior vena cava (IVC) filter choices by better understanding the retrieval characteristics, complications, and total costs between two commonly used IVC filters. METHODS: All patients who underwent retrieval or attempted retrieval of Denali (Bard Peripheral Vascular) or Option (Argon Medical Devices) IVC filters were identified between March 2016 and October 2021 at a single tertiary care center. Those with imaging studies that permitted evaluation of filter placement, presence or degree of tilt, and/or hooking of the filter into the IVC wall were included in the present study. Filter retrieval success, number of attempts, use of advanced techniques, and fluoroscopy and procedural times were recorded and compared between the two filters. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients presented for retrieval of 52 Denali and 35 Option Elite filters during the study period. Denali filters were more likely to be successfully retrieved at the first attempt (94% vs 77%; P = .019). The procedural and fluoroscopy times were shorter for Denali filters (29 minutes vs 63 minutes [P < .001] and 7 minutes vs 25 minutes [P < .001], respectively). Denali filters were less likely to be significantly tilted (≥15○) at retrieval (12% vs 29%; P < .001) or to have the filter hook embedded in the IVC wall (6% vs 40%; P < .001). Tilting of the filter of ≥15○ had no significant effects on the retrieval success rate (no tilt or tilt <15○ vs tilt of ≥15○: 98% vs 100%; P = .58). In contrast, filter hook penetration into the IVC wall significantly reduced successful recovery (41% vs 99%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that although the filter designs are similar, a benefit exists in the ease of retrievability of the Denali over the Option filter. We found that tilting and hooking of the filter in the IVC wall occurred significantly more with the Option filter. These factors likely made retrieval more difficult and contributed to the longer procedure and fluoroscopy times.

Optimal medical management in patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions for chronic limb-threatening ischemia is associated with improved outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Optimizing medical management and risk factor modification are underused strategies in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), despite evidence of improved outcomes. The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry is a tool to improve quality of vascular care. In this study, we used the VQI to evaluate trends in medical management in patients with CLTI undergoing peripheral vascular interventions (PVI), and the impact of changes in management on overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), and limb salvage (LS). METHODS: Patients undergoing index PVI for CLTI between 2012 and 2016, with ≥24 months of follow-up were identified from the national VQI registry. Patient details including smoking status and medication use, OS, LS, and AFS were analyzed with linear-by-linear association, t test, and logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 12,370 PVI completed in 11,466 patients. There was a significant increase in infrapopliteal interventions (from 29.8% to 39.0%; P < .001) and PVI performed for tissue loss (from 59.1% to 66.5%; P < .001). The percentage of current smokers at time of PVI decreased (from 36.2% to 30.7%; P = .036). At discharge, statins were initiated in 25%, aspirin in 45%, and P2Y12 therapy in 58% of patients not receiving these medications before PVI. Over the course of follow-up, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (from 41.1% to 48.0%; P < .001), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (from 46.2% to 51.3%; P < .001), and statin (from 70.4% to 77.5%; P < .001) use increased. Combined DAPT, ACE inhibitor and statin use increased from 33.6% to 39.6% (P ≤ .001). Significant improvement in 24-month OS and AFS was noted (OS, from 90.9% to 93.7% [P = .002]: AFS, from 81.2% to 83.1% [P = .046]), but not LS (from 89.6% to 89.0%; P = .83). Combined therapy with P2Y12 inhibitors, statins and ACE inhibitors was an independent predictor of improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.96; P = .034). DAPT was independent predictor of improved LS (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.87; P < .007). CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet, ACE inhibitor, and statin use increased over the study period and was associated with improved OS and AFS. LS trends did not change significantly over time, possibly owing to the inclusion of patients with a greater disease burden or inadequate medical management. Medical management, although improved, remained far from optimal and represents an area for continued development.

Impact of Statins on Survival and Limb Salvage in Patients Undergoing Peripheral Endovascular Intervention for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy is recommended in all patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Its impact on reduction in mortality has been well-documented, yet effect on limb-specific outcomes has been less conclusive. Differences among PAD subgroups or variability of statin use may contribute to the inconsistent findings. We evaluated statin use in patients who underwent peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and its impact on overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS) and limb salvage (LS). METHODS: The national Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for the index PVI for CLTI during the period 2010-2016; follow-up (FU) through 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and FU status were recorded. Patients were categorized as E-Statin: statin use pre-PVI through discharge (D/C) and FU or N-Statin: No statins pre-PVI, at D/C or any time during FU. The propensity score matched model (PSM) was constructed. Groups were compared using chi-square, Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 9,089 index PVI in 8,402 patients; E-Statin: 7149 index PVI in 6,591 patients; and N-Statin: 1940 index PVI in 1811 patients. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years and 58% were male. Statin use was associated with improved 3-year OS-E Statin: 92.9% ± 0.9 versus N Statin: 91.1% ± 2.2%; P = 0.003; hazard ratio (HR): Exp (B) (95% confidence interval): 0.66 (0.44-0.99); P = 0.047 and remained significant following PSM: E Statin: 95.1% ± 0.2% versus 90.8% ± 0.3%; P = 0.02; HR: 0.50 (0.27-0.92); P = 0.025. No significant differences in 3-year LS or AFS were noted between the prematched groups; LS: E Statin: 83.7% ± 0.8 versus N Statin: 84.0% ± 1.7%; P = 0.89; HR: 1.09 (0.88-1.35); P = 0.44; AFS-E Statin: 77.2% ± 1.1% versus 76.1% ± 2.5%; P = 0.17; HR: 0.97 (0.79-1.18); P = 0.74. or following PSM: AFS: 80.2% ± 2.8% vs. 74.7% ± 3.9%; P = 0.53, HR: 0.92 (0.72-1.19); P = 0.54; LS 85.3% ± 1.9% vs. 83.5% ± 2.6%; P = 0.51, HR: 1.08 (0.83-1.4); P = 0.57. Statins significantly improved LS among those with renal failure: 67.8% ± 2.6% vs. 59.7% ± 4.4%; P = 0.003; HR: 56 (0.40-0.79); P = 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Statins are independently associated with improved OS in patients who undergo PVI for CLTI and should be considered for all barring intolerance. Statin use was associated with improved LS in patients with end-stage renal disease. Additional research is needed in this area, particularly, the impact of statin therapy in high-risk CLTI subgroups.

Comparison of outcomes for balloon angioplasty, atherectomy, and stenting in the treatment of infrapopliteal disease for chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated limb salvage (LS), amputation-free survival (AFS), and target extremity reintervention (TER) after plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), stenting, and atherectomy for treatment of infrapopliteal disease (IPD) with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). METHODS: All index peripheral vascular interventions for IPD and CLTI were identified from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry. Of the multilevel procedures, the peripheral vascular intervention type was indexed to the infrapopliteal segment. Propensity score matching was used to control for baseline differences between groups. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression were used to calculate and compare LS and AFS. RESULTS: The 3-year LS for stenting vs POBA was 87.6% vs 81.9% (P = .006) but was not significant on Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.76; P = .08). AFS was superior for stenting vs POBA (78.1% vs 69.5%; P = .001; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.90; P = .003). LS was similar for POBA and atherectomy (81.9% vs 84.8%; P = .11) and for stenting and atherectomy (87.6% vs 84.8%; P = .23). The LS rate after propensity score matching for POBA vs stenting was 83.4% vs 88.2% (P = .07; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-1.017; P = .062). The AFS rate for stenting vs POBA was 78.8% vs 69.4% (P = .005; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89; P = .005). No significant differences were found between stenting and atherectomy (P = .21 for atherectomy; and P = .34 for POBA). The need for TER did not differ across the groups but the interval to TER was significantly longer for stenting than for POBA or atherectomy (stenting vs POBA, 12.8 months vs 7.7 months; P = .001; stenting vs atherectomy, 13.5 months vs 6.8 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Stenting and atherectomy had comparable LS and AFS for patients with IPD and CLTI. However, stenting conferred significant benefits for AFS compared with POBA but atherectomy did not. Furthermore, the interval to TER was nearly double for stenting compared with POBA or atherectomy. These factors should be considered when determining the treatment strategy for this challenging anatomic segment.

Understanding radiation exposure and improving safety for vascular surgery trainees.

OBJECTIVE: Despite having robust radiation safety education procedures and policies in place, we discovered that the trainees at our Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved integrated vascular surgery residency and fellowship program were exceeding the annual radiation exposure limits. In the present report, we have described our quality improvement project to identify the root causes and implement policies to improve radiation safety education, oversite, and, ultimately, the exposure levels of our trainees. METHODS: A committee of faculty, fellows, radiology nurses, and radiation safety officers from each of the programs affiliated hospitals convened to identify the potential root causes of the increased radiation exposure and potential modifiable actions. The radiation exposure reports for postgraduate year 4 to 7 trainees were evaluated before and after the interventions. RESULTS: Excessive radiation exposure was found to be more prevalent than anticipated, with multiple trainees surpassing the annual exposure limits. The committee classified the factors at play and interventions into four categories: policies and procedures, curriculum, environment, resources, and equipment. The multisite status of our program was a key factor associated with the increased radiation exposure. In addition, we found that excessive radiation levels were occurring primarily at a single hospital site. After the interventions, the monthly average levels at this site had decreased considerably from 936 mrem to 272 mrem. CONCLUSIONS: We found it alarming that the safety policies in place at vascular residency and fellowship programs were inadequate in securing the safety of their trainees. We found interventions such as inventorying and ensuring the availability of safety equipment, hands-on instruction to complement traditional didactics, lowering the default frame rates, and converting to real-time dosimetry to be effective measures for reducing radiation exposure.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is associated with superior outcomes as compared with aspirin monotherapy in chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Antiplatelet therapy is recommended in patients with peripheral arterial disease to reduce cardiovascular risk and improve outcomes. However, issues including the drug of choice and use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs monotherapy remain unclear. This study aims to compare the impact of aspirin (ASA) monotherapy, P2Y12 monotherapy, and DAPT on limb salvage (LS), amputation-free survival (AFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative PVI registry was used to identify index procedures completed for CLTI between March 1, 2010 and September 30, 2017. Patients were categorized by antiplatelet use at the time of last follow-up. Patients not on antiplatelet therapy were compared with ASA, P2Y12 monotherapy, and DAPT. Propensity score-matched samples were created for direct ASA vs P2Y12 and P2Y12 vs DAPT comparisons; veracity was confirmed by χ2 and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression were performed for OS, AFS, and LS. RESULTS: A total of 12,433 index PVI were completed for CLTI in 11,503 subjects in the pre-matched sample. Antiplatelet use at follow-up was: 12% none, 31% ASA, 14% P2Y12, and 43% DAPT. Median follow-up was 1389 days. P2Y12 monotherapy was associated with improved outcomes as compared with ASA monotherapy, OS (87.8% vs 85.5%l P = .026; Cox hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.98; P = .03), AFS (79.6% vs 74.8%; P < .001; Cox HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86; P < .001) and LS (89.5% vs 86.8%; P = .013; Cox HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91; P = .004). P2Y12 monotherapy and DAPT had comparable OS (87.8% vs 88.9%; P = .62; Cox HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P = .50), AFS (79.6% vs 81.5%; P = .33; Cox HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78-1.07; P = .28), and LS (91.7% vs 89.4; P = .03; Cox HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: P2Y12 monotherapy was associated with superior OS, AFS, and LS as compared with ASA monotherapy, and comparable OS, LS, and AFS with DAPT in patients undergoing PVI for CLTI. P2Y12 monotherapy may be considered over ASA monotherapy and DAPT in patients with CLTI, especially in patients with high bleeding risk.

Need for Routine Preoperative Insertion of Indwelling Urinary Catheter Prior to Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Evaluate outcomes following urinary catheter (UC) versus no urinary catheter (NUC) insertion in elective endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). METHODS: Retrospective record review of all elective EVAR at a university affiliated medical center over a 5-year period. Statistical analysis included Chi Sq, Independent Student t Test. RESULTS: Six surgeons performed 272 elective EVAR. Three surgeons preferred selective insertion of indwelling UC, such that 86 (32%) EVAR were completed without indwelling urinary catheters (NUC). Differences between NUC versus UC included; male: (86% vs. 70%; P = 0.004), CAD: (45% vs. 33%; p = 0.046), conscious sedation: (36% vs. 8%; P < 0.001), bilateral percutaneous EVAR (PEVAR): (100% vs. 90%; P = 0.01), within ProglideTM IFU guidelines (87% vs 75%; P = .05), major adverse operative event (MAOE): (3.5% vs. 10%; P = 0.05) and mean operative time (185 ± 73 vs. 140 ± 37; P < 0.001). Intra-operative catheterization was never required among NUC. Postoperative adverse urinary events (AUE) were more common among UC (11.4% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.41); with longer times to straight catheterization/reinsertion (1575 ± 987 vs, 522 ± 269 min; P = 0.015) and lower likelihood of eligibility for same day discharge (SDD); (41% vs. 59%; P = 0.008). Ineligibility for SDD was due to AUE in 18% of UC patients. CONCLUSION: Selective preoperative UC insertion should be considered for EVAR, with particular consideration to no preoperative catheterization in men meeting Proglide IFU. Adverse urinary events occurred less frequently among NUC and were identified/ treated earlier. Moreover, AUEs were the most common reason for potential SDD ineligibility among UC patients. Selective policies may facilitate SDD.

Venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 infection: risk factors, prevention, and management.

Venous thromboembolic complications have emerged as serious sequelae in COVID-19 infections. This article summarizes the most current information regarding pathophysiology, risk factors and hematologic markers, incidence and timing of events, atypical venous thromboembolic complications, prophylaxis recommendations, and therapeutic recommendations. Data will likely to continue to rapidly evolve as more knowledge is gained regarding venous events in COVID-19 patients.

The selection of patients for ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair of elective asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVES: To identify candidates undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of asymptomatic infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm who are eligible for early (≤6 hours) hospital discharge or to have EVAR performed in free-standing ambulatory surgery centers. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of all elective EVAR performed at a university medical center over 5 years was undertaken. Potential candidates for early discharge or to have EVAR performed in a free-standing ambulatory surgery setting were defined as those who used routine monitoring services only or had self-limited minor adverse events (AE) that were identified, treated, and resolved within 6 hours of surgery. Risk factors for ineligibility were determined by logistic regression. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were measured to determine the veracity of the risk factor profile. RESULTS: There were 272 elective EVARs; the mean patient age was 74 years (range, 52-94 years), and 75% were male. Twenty-five operative major AEs (MAE) occurred in 21 patients (7.7%): bleeding (5.9%), thrombosis (1.8%), and arterial injury (1.8%). Percutaneous EVAR (PEVAR) attempted in 260 patients (96%) was successful in 238 (88%). Failed PEVAR was associated with operative MAE (P < .001). Combined operative/postoperative MAE occurred in 43 patients (15.8%); 17 (6%) required intensive care admission; 88% directly from the operating room/postanesthesia care unit. Only two MAE (0.7%) occurred beyond 6 hours; (congestive heart failure at 24 hours, thrombosis/reoperation at 15 hours). Other AE included nausea (17%), blood pressure alteration (15%), and urinary retention (13%). Need for nonroutine services or treatment of other AE occurred in 131 (48%) patients with 79 (29%) developing or requiring treatment ≥6 hours postoperatively. However, 22 (8%) were treated/resolved in <6 hours; 30 (11%) patients required monitoring only and 36% had no complications, so, overall eligibility for same-day discharge/free-standing ambulatory surgery center was 55%. Failed PEVAR (odds ratio [OR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-4.49; P = .008), PEVAR performed outside of instructions for use (IFU) criteria (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.07-7.56; P = .037), Endologix AFX graft (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.19-2.33; P = .003) were independent predictors of MAE or AE occurring/requiring treatment >6 hours postoperatively; EVAR, which did not require an additional aortic cuff, was associated with a lower incidence (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.65; P = .01). Neither aortic nor limb IFU were independent predictors. Profiles using PEVAR IFU, PEVAR failure, and graft type demonstrated only moderate sensitivity (63%), specificity (71%), positive predictive value (70%), and negative predictive value (63%). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of all patients who undergo EVAR are ready for discharge within 6 hours postoperatively. Failed PEVAR, aortic cuffs, and Endologix AFX graft were independent predictors of MAE or AE occurring/requiring treatment for ≥6 hours. However, sensitivity parameters of this profile were insufficient to advocate EVAR in free-standing ambulatory surgical units at this time, but hospital-based ambulatory admission with same-day discharge would be a viable option because of easy inpatient transition for those requiring continued care.

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ACEI/ARB) are Associated with Improved Limb Salvage after Infrapopliteal Interventions for Critical Limb Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ACEI/ARB) reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). However, their effect on limb-specific outcomes is unclear. The objective of this study is to assess the effect of ACEI/ARB on patency and limb salvage in patients undergoing interventions for critical limb ischemia (CLI). METHODS: Patients undergoing infrainguinal revascularization for CLI (Rutherford 4-6) between 06/2001 and 12/2014 were retrospectively identified. Primary Patency (PP), Secondary Patency (SP), Limb Salvage (LS), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier. Multivariate analysis was performed using Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 755 limbs in 611 patients (311 ACEI/ARB, 300 No ACEI/ARB) were identified. Hypertension (86% vs. 70%, P < 0.001), diabetes (68% vs. 55%, P = 0.001) and statin use (61% vs. 45%, P < 0.001) were significantly greater in the ACEI/ARB group. Interventions were performed mostly for tissue loss (83% ACEI/ARB vs. 84% No ACEI/ARB, P = 0.73). Comparing ACEI/ARB versus No ACEI/ARB, in femoropopliteal interventions, 60-month PP (54% vs. 55%, P = 0.47), SP (76% vs. 75%, P = 0.83) and LS (84% vs. 87%, P = 0.36) were not significantly different. In infrapopliteal interventions, 60-month PP (45% vs. 46%, P = 0.66) and SP (62% vs. 75%, P = 0.96) were not significantly different. LS was significantly greater in ACEI/ARB (75%), as compared to No ACEI/ARB (61%) (P = 0.005). Cox regression identified diabetes (HR 2.4 (1.4-4.1), P = 0.002), ESRD (HR 3.5 (2.1-5.7), P < 0.001), hypertension (HR 0.4 (0.2-0.6), P < 0.001), and ACEI/ARB (HR 0.6 (0.4-0.9), P = 0.03), as factors independently associated with LS after infrapopliteal interventions. Freedom from MACE (ACEI/ARB 37% vs. 32%, P = 0.82) and overall survival (ACEI/ARB 42% vs. 35% No ACEI/ARB, P = 0.84) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: ACEI/ARB is associated with improved limb salvage in CLI patients undergoing infrapopliteal interventions, but not after femoropopliteal interventions. ACEI/ARB had no impact on patency rates. They were also associated with a trend toward improved survival and freedom from MACE. Our findings suggest that the use of ACEI/ARB may improve outcomes in the high-risk CLI patient population.